No, I clicked on your username, and then In Forum, FR keeps the archive all right there, and all of those were just on the first page of your recent posts.
And what point did you prove? You proved that I challenge some of these soi disant "experts" as to their true motives.
You said that you don't do this, and challenged me in #74 to: Please post where I have accused anyone individually of having an ulterior motive.
Now that I have done so, you ask what point I am making? The point is that you are not about debating the plan, you are about debating the motives of the people who are discussing the plan, aka ad hominem attacks.
none of them have stood beside you with your self indulgence about getting an e-mail from someone whom you obviously think is a celebrity.
It is you who is hung up on this "celebrity" thing, not me. I view the Jorgenson exchange as one step in getting the FairTaxers to admit that the Free Lunch ("100% paycheck, prices stay the same") was an impossibility. If you look back more than a year, and the FairTaxers would not admit this even though many posters before me saw the same problem and made the exact same arguments.
So why should I not suggest that you have an agenda? There are a lot of people who make a LOT of money BECAUSE of the way the system is set up.
It has long been recognized that in a debate you lose points when you make a personal attack. It is a given that everyones position is suspect and that things must be debated using facts, attempts to discredit or derail a debate using personal attacks is not a accepted method of discussion.
You are like the 60% of colonists who were afraid of standing up to George. The only difference is, you decided to debate about it and lost. At least the meek in 1776 were a little honest about it.
That is your opinion, I happen to think that I am the one that is standing up to the populist FairTax scheme, and attempting to point out the incorrect assumptions and problems as I see them. If you consider that meek, then you are wrong about that too.
And I use logic and real math to explain where I am getting my estimates. And none of them have been shown to be incorrect.
Really? That's sad.